-
Sigmund Freud, the Great Philosophical AdventureI am not sure Freud should get so much credit for the concept of our subconscious? Many were working with the notion of subconscious and when we contemplate truth, we might also want to consider entire cultures have a subconscious just as individuals. That is why I make a big deal out of the Christian influence on German philosophers. Those of us living in Christian cultures can not avoid Christian thinking even if we are not Christian. Some have consdered Christianity to be morbid and Freud's notions of our sexuality are troubling.
Philosophy of the Unconscious: Speculative Results According to the Induction Method of the Physical Sciences (German: Philosophie des Unbewussten) is an 1869 book by the philosopher Eduard von Hartmann.[1] The culmination of the speculations and findings of German romantic philosophy in the first two-thirds of the 19th century, Philosophy of the Unconscious became famous.[2] By 1882, it had appeared in nine editions.[3] A three volume English translation appeared in 1884.[4] The English translation is more than 1100 pages long.[5] The work influenced Sigmund Freud's and Carl Jung's theories of the unconscious.[4][6] — https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_the_Unconscious
I suspect this Western interest in a subconscious followed contact with the East. -
Why do we not all have the same thought conclusions?Well, thank you for the flatter, but I am old enough to know how much I do not know, and I am very sure I am far from genius. :lol: I am so unsure of my brain function, I turned to a doctor to check it and I qualified for further testing of the possibility of being in the early stages of dementia. It is frightening the number of times I have felt overwhelmed by the complexity of post in this forum. I absolutely do not know philosophy as well as many who post here. I am more pragmatic and political but my political ideology comes from Greek and Roman philosophy.
I am obsessed by the effect of the 1958 National Defense Education Act. The social, economic, and political ramifications are huge- and the most important factor is the change in how we prepare our young to think. That is why I push for a better understanding of fast and slow thinking.
In a democracy it is pretty important we agree on important issues. Democracy is rule by reason, not rule by authority over us, but the change in education has left our democracy undefended and this year, the result of our election may be violence. That makes the subject of your thread extremely important! We seriously need to understand why we are polarized and reactionary and why we are experiencing so much violence as a means of settling our differences. Other people who post here explain the difference between thinking based on belief, versus thinking based on fact and reflection much better than I do. This also happens to be the difference between fast (belief) and slow thinking (reflection). -
Sigmund Freud, the Great Philosophical AdventureI think Freud was influenced by Christian beliefs and the patriarchal culture in which he lived, leading to wrong conclusions. I should disclose I have bone to pick with him because of his notion of penis envy. As a female, I strongly doubt any of us woke up one morning and went into a panic attack because we don't have a visible penis. :lol: Also as a pagan, he seems to have a strange notion of our development depending on the erotic areas of our bodies, rather than a more scientific understanding of the development of our neurons and brains and personalities.
However, he was not completely wrong about everything and I think his relationship with Jung was important to both men's contributions to our thoughts on psychology.
Carl Jung and Freud
Many believe Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung defined the world of psychology. Both had differing theories, but made equal impacts on people's perception of the human mind. ... Freud acted as a mentor and father figure towards Jung, and Jung acted as an energetic new prospect to the movement towards Freud.Jun 23, 2016
Freud vs. Jung | In Your Dreams - Sites at Penn State — Peen State
Jung's ideas less offensive and are more interesting to me, and from him is Joseph Campbell who gives us an interesting notion of consciousness.
Exactly what do you think Freud had to say that is worth our consideration today? -
Why do we not all have the same thought conclusions?have not read Cicero but take your point about possible undertaking of training in thinking.
I think that the book you refer to is part of the genre of smart thinking. I do not dismiss this tradition as well as other systems of improving thinking ability including NLP and cognitive behavioral therapy. I wish to engage with this tradition as much as possible.
My own thoughts are I am wary of the smart thinking genre if it is seen as a means of thinking as the supreme thinking tool. I think it can be used alongside philosophy rather than as a quick shortcut and replacement for philosophy as an art and discipline for developing thinking ability. — Jack Cummins
It is not Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking verses philosophy. However, your reply is an example of fast thinking. You reacted to what I said with what you know. You did not investigate the explanation of fast and slow thinking and then think about this new information before replying. Investigating the new information and contemplating it before replying would be slow thinking.
Philosophy demands slow thinking but it is more common for people to argue based on what they know than try to understand what someone else has said. For sure I enjoy showing off what I think I know, and I didn't understand the importance of asking questions until entering my later years. Even now with an understanding of the importance of asking questions, I rather show off what I know than really pay attention to what someone else is saying. In my defense my experience in forums has been, if I ask questions, people assume I do have knowledge or they are offended when my question results in them realizing they do not know the answer. The younger the person, the more apt the person is to think it is my intent to make them feel stupid.
Interestingly, in a political forum, people tend to be much more sure of what they think they know (fast thinking), than in this philosophy forum (slow thinking). In this forum where a lot of people have done a lot of slow thinking, I am more apt to feel stupid, while in the political forum, where people are reactionary, I think I am a genius. :lol:
I hope that is a better explanation of fast and slow thinking?
PS there are huge political ramifications to education for technology that ended education for slow thinking and democracy. The technological society we have today is not the democracy we defended in two world wars. We now have the reactionary politics Germany had when Hitler came to power and there is fear, no matter who wins this election, there will be a violent reaction. -
Preservation of information through time and universal memoryAre you preparing to write a science fiction book? That was a long post and I don't think many would read it through.
I couldn't help muse at your explanation of how a black hole distorts time. Would a black hole explain how God could create the world in 6 days?
Exactly what is time? I thought it was an abstract thing not tangible reality. What makes time a tangible reality?
I think the best way to preserve information is write it in stone. Information dependent on electronic technology would not be accessible to those who do not have that technology. Global warming could bring our civilizations to an end and we might have to start over again with low technology. -
Why do we not all have the same thought conclusions?I do not see why you think it is the case that the thinking processes will result in us arriving at the same conclusions. — Jack Cummins
You make a good argument for diversified awareness but Cicero believed if we used good information and good logic we would come to agreements and I believe that is possible when we have a better understanding of our thinking. Daniel Kahneman has written a few books because his understanding or our thinking evolves and he has gotten a better and better understanding of it. We are doomed to make bad decisions unless we are aware of this, and discipline ourselves to use better rules for making decisions. -
Why do we not all have the same thought conclusions?I understand the processes by which we eventually conclude but anyone who created us obviously had the ability to ensure that these processes led to the same conclusion. This is not the case which causes huge problems. Giving us the ability to reach different conclusions causes more problems than it solves. Is the final way to the same thought conclusions via this messy thought differences that plague the world right now? — david plumb
Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking is an interesting answer to your question. Fast thinking is based on beliefs. Slow thinking involves reflecting on what we think and questioning it and using logic. Much of what we do is automatic. The action or thought is there as fast it is triggered. If we didn't have this fast-thinking and authomatic reactions our life span would be very short because if we processed on inform in slow thinking mode, by the time we reacted to a mother bear or car headed towards it would be too late. On the other hand would not evolve and learn from experience without slow thinking. Slow thinking questions what happened, why did it happen, could things have gone differently.
The higher thinking skills are not natural to us but must be learned. The difference here is figuring how to make and throw a spear or knowing the science behind why a spear works. Technology requires knowledge of math and science. This is the difference between primitive people and what we have acheived through science. Even if the primitive person ponders why something is so, it is more apt to come up as a supernatural notion than scientifically correct information. The primitive person has not learned the human invention of higher order thinking skills.
Something else we might consider is how our beliefs are connected to how we feel. Going against what we believe, can feel life threatening. We are not gving enough respect to what our feelings have to do with our thinking. Most the time when we say "I think---------" we are not actually thinking but feeling. We are not going to a source of information, but we are turning inward to know if something is true or not. If feels right so it must be right. That is, it agrees with what we believe, but that belief could be wrong or as least impossible to validate through the scientific method. There is not scientific evidence that a god made of us clay but there is a lot of scientific evidence supporting evolution but many do not accept evolution because it goes against what they believe and that FEELS wrong. -
Problem with ChristianityTechnically, Christianity is about retiring the Old Testament and heh christening a new one. Kinda like "yeah it happened but we don't really do that so much now" .. take that how you please. — Outlander
I have thought if the Bible did not include the old testament, that would be an improvement. Then we could have in the beginning was logos, instead of the story of the Garden of Eden. But then why would anyone need to be baptized and saved by Jesus if Eve didn't eat from the forbidden fruit and we didn't believe in supernatural powers and a God who curses people? -
Problem with ChristianityTrue, Christians do judge. Not sure you can judge Jesus exists or not as judgement is more about decisions than believing truth or untruth. Christianity is unique- Jesus was crucified, He also died and rose to Heaven, He was a Jew and never founded the Christianity movement and he understood existentialism extremely well. — david plumb
Fascinating statement- that judgment and belief are different. I think that is exactly the point I have been trying to make.
Before Jesus there was Mirtha, and later Mohammad also rose to heaven at the site of the rock in Isreal. Either people believe such things happen or they don't. It is silly that when they agree such things happen, they then argue about which religion is the true one when all this religious stuff is based on belief, not scientific judgment such as the judgment of Hippocrates, the father of medicine. -
Problem with ChristianityGood job. Now the question is how to get Christians to learn about such things, and all the warring and power games that lead to the Bible we have today? This information was not available 20 years ago, but it is rapidly becoming available, along with science about why we succeed and fail. We need to unhook our nation from mythology but Christians are not motivated to do so.
Our failure to understand what science has to do with good moral judgment and what education for higher-order thinking skills has to do with better logic is a huge problem! AsOutlander argued the world would collapse into sin without Christianity fighting back against Satan. Well, those are not his exact words but I think that is how he sees things. That kind of thinking is not scientific and it is what is wrong with Chrisitanity.
We need to build a better understanding of moral thinking being scientific thinking of cause and effect to combat the notion that we must have religion to be moral. We also have a serious problem with Islam because it is so easy to see US imperialism, and capitalism, as the embodiment of evil. One religious zealot arguing with another, but a different religion, is more apt to escalate problems than resolve them. Democracy when understood as rule by reason, gets us past the holy wars. -
Problem with ChristianityJust something to think about.. Judgement of sin divorced from its original context means nothing. Sin has to do with not following some of the commandments in the Books of the Law (Torah). Anything outside of this is some reconstruction done by various Romanizing forces that took the little Jesus Movement and reworked it into the Greco-Roman world where ancestral laws of a specific tribe of people didn't matter. — schopenhauer1
Doesn't the Bible say we were born into sin? Something akin to evil? If not why did God sacrifice his own son? Why do we need to be saved by Jesus, instead of science? -
Problem with ChristianityWhat a brilliant idea Athena .. maybe soon we'll be able to make bombs that can blow up entire continents instead of just regional areas. I mean, according to Darwinism if you're smaller or weaker or less intelligent than myself, I just about have a duty to consume, eat, kill, or otherwise "assert my superiority over you" and if I do so, that's just helping the human race. To not do so is to leave us all handicapped.
There's no reason you can't have both. — Outlander
:lol: Obviously you have not read what Darwin said but appear to have a Christian understanding of science. Christians worry a lot about aborting children, and without science, we would be back in a time when people didn't name their children until they were 3 years of age because so many children died before age 3 and life expectation was half of what is today living the world run by youth without the much wisdom of age.
The blessings we have today came from science. Our democracy and liberty depend on science, so it is pretty important to me, people have a better understanding of science than you appear to have. We are not God's favorite people and it is not our God-given destiny to spread out of Rome, killing all indigenous people in our path as we cross Europe and into the Americas. Enslaving people and killing people in the name of God is not moral but it is Christian. People like Billy Graham who tell us God wants us to send our sons and daughters into war, are wrong, and our invasion of Iraq was our shame not the power of glory that Bush wanted us to think it was. People who believe they are doing the will of God have killed more people than atheist. So being a Crusader against science, may not work so well for you. -
Problem with ChristianityFor example, I noticed that the English word 'commandment' is heard by most British and American readers as if it were an order that should be obeyed. In Arabic it is heard as an important advice given by a loving father to his beloved sons. After all, love cannot be commanded; otherwise it can be called anything but true love. — KerimF
Whoo- a commandment can be ignored? In war, it is essential to follow the commander. I am groping here because I understand the word as Americans do and it seems our understanding of a commandment is associated with war as the rigid formation of a Roman army. There are those who command and those who follow. This is heavy in our culture with strong religious reasons.
Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, thought God determines who is to rule and who is to serve, and feudalism was strictly controlled by the church. People were thought to be part of the property owned by landlords. The argument that Muslims can not be democratic expresses ignorance of our history and major denial. Come to think of it, my present-day concern about the problem with Christian thinking did not include our history when things were much worse. Coming from our history, it is amazing we have democracy and a notion of equality. But boy, are we struggling with what is in our cultural subconscious and the principles of democracy.
An Arabic point of view throws me into a space that is unknown to me. Do you know of Arab military strategy? I have heard much from Muslims about respect and love. What they are saying is nothing like our image of those we call terrorists. And what you say seems to speak of freedom and tolerance. But how does that right with a father who kills his daughter because she was alone with a man? That is pretty controlling. I have an idea of Arab men as very controlling? Yet the holy book seems an effort to curb the way men treat women and perhaps give women more protection than the Christian Bible.
My goodness, I was not expecting the concern of religion and sexism to come up, but clearly it is a serious issue. The religions are patriarchal and women have been repressed for thousands of years. I am very excited by the power women have gained and the potential for change. -
Problem with ChristianityThe problem with Christianity is not believing there is a God, the reliance on this God. The simplicity of this thinking and believing that is the best we can do is a problem. It is like understanding basic math enough to pass a test but not well enough to do calculus. Democracy is progressive, a constant expanding of intelligence, and requires more advanced thinking than 2 plus 2 is 4. So the thinking of Christians, unless they become educated in higher-order thinking skills, is too simplistic for good moral judgment and political decisions in a modern world.
If people are basing decisions on what they feel, instead of information, there is a problem! If they think politics are about their own gain, rather than the well-being of the whole nation, and considering global warming, the health of the world, then there is a problem. If they are avoiding becoming well informed because they think science is the lies of Satan, we are in big trouble. As Marx said, it is a problem of consciousness. The politic ramificantions are huge. -
Problem with ChristianitySuppose you could call it (not the religion but how the human brain works) "mob mentality". If you're outside of the mob, you're bad. Lol. — Outlander
Independent thinking should always keep us a little outside of the mob, and when we are not in agreement with what the mob is doing, it is our duty to say so.
The truth is essential to democracy because only when we do the right thing will we get good results. Not because a god is pleased with us and makes this so, but what happens is the consequence of our action. We need scientific thinking, not religion. -
Problem with ChristianityThe Old Testament is full of references to the extermination of heathens, like:
"Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” 1 Samuel 15: 2-3.
"But in the cities of these peoples that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance, you shall save alive nothing that breathes, but you shall devote them to complete destruction, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, as the Lord your God has commanded," Deuteronomy 20: 16-17.
Don't walk like a Gentile (heathen):
Ephesians 4:17-19
"So this I say, and affirm together with the Lord, that you walk no longer just as the Gentiles also walk, in the futility of their mind, being darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart; and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness." — Ciceronianus the White
Thank you so much. So what is up the Christians who argue as though those quotes are not part of the Bible and have nothing to do with the Christian leadership of the US today? I never argued religion because back in the day that was considered very bad manners. But then Bush lead us into a war and Billy Graham told us God wants us to send our sons and daughters into war. That was presented as our Christian "power and glory" and the response was many small nations deciding they must have nurclear weapons. Moral, using military might for economic reasons makes the world less safe and it is a serious economic burden.
I want to keep this focused on the difference between basic moral judgment, religious, or the more scientific method. Yes, the Bible can justify war and persecution of others by claiming this is the will of God, and good logic is a more honest and higher level of moral thinking. Democracy is aligned with science. Our liberty and the liberty of others depends on science, not religion. The pandemic is consuming lives and making life difficult around the world, and going to church or political rallies without masks and social distancing is being part of the problem. That behavior most certainly is not the better logic! -
Problem with Christianity↪Athena
I don't know about Christianity but for judgement we need sound moral criteria and that's exactly what's missing or is highly controversial at the moment. — TheMadFool
Yes, that is exactly what this thread about but some of you word things better than I do.
Criteria- a principle or standard by which something may be judged or decided. How is a principle or standard decided? There seems to be studying a holy book and not everyone interprets that the same, or using logic. Now using logic is a problem because most of us do not know the rules for logic. Higher order thinking skills must be learned and the 2012 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for higher order thinking. The reasoning was, teaching children to think for themselves results in rebelling against the parents and lack of parental control. That is a rational concern. However, not having higher order thinking skills leads to depending on the leaders God gives us and that is a huge problem! So now what do we need to do?
Education for a technololgical society with unknown values, left no agreement on how we determine values and principles. -
Problem with ChristianityThat said, on the topic generally, we make judgments all the time about people, events, things. It's part of what we do. The trick is to do so intelligently. Christianity holds that judgment is required, however, as a matter of doctrine; judgment of humanity in general, and of people, according to doctrine. — Ciceronianus the White
Thank you very much! The churches I have visited talk a lot about the dangers of those heathens and pagans and the need to protect the neighborhood for "Christians". I see this daily in prejudice against "those people" and the fear in our politics. No President has made this more evident than Trump so we can no longer ignore the Christian problem as innocent freedom of religion. Especially not in Texas where teachers had to go to the Supreme Court to stop teaching creationism as equal to science. The 1912 Texas Republican agenda was to prevent education for the higher order thinking skills. The Christian influence on our schools is strong and we are in trouble because this education goes with following Trump and not wearing mask or respecting science. Many fearing science as the voice of the Satan.
Do you know of Bible quotes that give evidence of the Christian requirement for judgment? What part of the Bible are ministers using when they warn their flock about the heathens and pagans? -
Problem with ChristianityOr maybe if we're in a bad place join them? Or if we're all ok, just socialize and get along cooperatively? — tim wood
"Day After Tomorrow" a huge freeze forces the people in North America to migrate South.
No, we can not join them for political reasons. This notion comes from a very old book praising the US democracy and our acceptance of immigrants from around the world, fleeing despots and nations that deny the people freedom and opportunity. We now seem to think of all Western civilization as democraciesand therefore fit for our occupation, but we may not do so well in the East. When the book I read was written that was not true. I think it is tragic we do not have a better understanding of history, and the consciousness of the justice and liberty we had. Building a wall to keep "them" out is solid evidence we have lost our earlier sense of purpose, our sense of meaning, and our mission.
The 1958 Nation Defence Education ended the transmission of culture and education for good moral judgment and left moral training up to the church. Now we live with believing we are God's chosen people and we are especially blessed by God. A totally false and dangerous belief. Instead of having the correct understanding of our history, we are living with the myth that democracy came from the Bible. :gasp: We stand to loose the democracy we inherited and that is why I started this thread. If the majority of voters are aligned with religion and not science, we are in serious trouble. Moral- keep your mask and do not attend church services where everyone is violating knowledge from science. -
Problem with ChristianityI don't know about Christianity but for judgement we need sound moral criteria and that's exactly what's missing or is highly controversial at the moment. — TheMadFool
I totally agree, and we are not going to achieve that goal arguing about what a holy book says because all of them are mythology and not scientific thinking. The difference is an important matter of logic. This is about fast and slow thinking. About believing it is God's truth without question, or questioning everything and not being so sure of what we think we know. A moral as a matter of cause and effect is not religious thinking but along the line of scientific logic. That is how to know truth. -
Problem with ChristianityAt age 17, I started reading attentively whatever Jesus, in person, says on the Gospel which I had (an Arabic Catholic one, printed in 1964). To my big surprise, I found out, even in my rather preliminary studies, crucial contradictions between his sayings and the Church’s teachings (Catholic or else). In brief, this personal study ended up, after many decades and to me in the least, what I may call ‘science of life reality’. — KerimF
How fortunate you are to be able to read the Bible in Arabic. I have found one language does not easily translate to another. Also, the Romans could not accept the Greek understanding of the trinity until they invented a new word to hold an understanding that could be expressed in Rome. I hold the idea, that people who know of Buddhism have a totally different understanding of Jesus than in the more materialistic West.
Understanding the Bible is as much about our culture as the words used. It will not be the same book to all who read it.
Much depends on our understanding of logos, reason, the controlling force of the universe made manifest in speech. How do we come to know logos? Reading a holy book or reading several holy books, or studying nature? Going to war because we believe that is God's will, is so different from not going to war because of having cause and effect logic and realizing many years after the war people will still be struggling with the effects of war. Thinking the wars are either won or lost and that is the end of that, is a huge mistake. It appears Catholics are less prone to believe God wants them to invade another country than Protestants and yet both are Christians. Christians with different consciousnesses.
I think it is easier to have agrement with scientific thinking than religious thinking? Religious people disagree and yet each is sure their different understanding are God's truth is the right one. That fact of life is what made me turn away from Christianity when was a 8 years old and a Sunday school teacher could not give a good explanation of why there a Protestants and Catholics and not agreement on God's truth. Later I found out there are many more religions, all believing they have truth and willing to kill eachother over who has the better truth. That is not moral. -
Is our "common sense" notion of justified suffering/pain wrong?You do not see a difference between what? A moral being a matter of cause and effect, or a moral being what the Bible says God likes and doesn't like? You can ask for God's forgiveness and get away with doing wrong or the failure to do right, but you can not get away with violating the laws of nature. Three dementional reality is a matter of cause and effect, not the whims of a god.
-
Problem with ChristianityI find your question of what Jesus actually did the most interesting. I do not remember one account of Jesus participating in the sacrifice of an animal. I have not studied the bible so I am not sure what the sacrificing is about but I think it has something to do with being on God's good side. That is, this judgment is about being pleased or displeased. That is totally different from cause and effect judgment and it is the kind of judgment that can be problematic so maybe we do not want a god who takes things personally and rewards or punishes people based on his feelings about the other person? More about the distinction of different forms of judgment coming.
Yes, I know the Bible says we should not judge each other and I find it hard not to judge others. However, as I get older I am less judgmental. I think it is natural for us to judge others and this is why I bring the subject up. What I am saying goes with this year's politics and all the religious attacks and reasoning on voting for things like socialism or being opposed to it. Are "those people" deserving. Is stopping at charity and prayers enough, or do we need political action? How are we judging reality and "those people" and what we should do about reality and "those people"? I seem to be hypersensitive to what judging others has to do with our politicalchoices.
I like your explanation of why we shouldn't judge and the possibility that that will change. Right now for those who favor evolution I want to say judgment and prejudice is a biological thing. Or we could make things really messy and speak of Daniel Kahneman's explanation of fast and slow thinking. But in defining judgment as the OP tries to present it, there is a personal judgment that can be full of prejudices and unconscious decisions, or there can be a scientific judgment that is hopefully fact based and without prejudiuce or unconscious, unquestioned judgments. Such as needing to protect our families and neighborhood from those pagans and atheists or protect everyone from those people who are differrent from us. Should we build a wall and keep them out, or rescue them from bad places and give them opportunity to be one of us?
Out of time. Hope to get to others soon. -
Is our "common sense" notion of justified suffering/pain wrong?As I said before, I think you've misunderstood moral relativism. A moral claim is a claim about how others should act, not a claim about one's personal prefernces. — Isaac — khaled
A moral claim is a matter of cause and effect.
No one helped the Little Red Hen make her bread so she didn't share it.
The Little Red Engine made it over the hill because he didn't give up.
The Fox didn't get the grapes because he did give up and comforted himself by deciding they were probably sour anyway.
That is a little different from judging what others should or should not do. It is not the individual that is judged but the action and consequence. -
Is our "common sense" notion of justified suffering/pain wrong?Life is capricious. Applying a concept of justice to it is humorous to me. :lol:
"There but the grace of God go I." -
Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)But guess who was naive? Naturally the stupid bullshitter decided otherwise.
Hence McGurk resigned. — ssu
Trump is doing what he believes his base wants. And he seems to be alining himself with bullies because his supporters admire people with power. I think only Zionist Christians would support Isreal at the expense of Palestinian and other Arab nations.
Jews were Semitic along with the Arabs, but they were Europeanized when they went north. Especially Germany played a strong role in the Isreal that exists today because of its influence on the Jews who migrated to Israel. Israel would not exist if Britain had not made this possible, and when Britain tried to prevent the Jewish takeover of Palestine, the Jews took up arms against the British, and the British left well-armed Jews and unarmed Palestinians, just as the Brits left well-armed colonist with poorly armed native Americans because men like Washington wanted to make a fortune on land that the Brits promised the colonist would not take. -
Side Effects of The InternetHippyhead
464
One thing that the internet has brought amongst us is loneliness — Konkai
The Internet allows us to zero in on exactly what interests us in a manner the real world typically can't match. Like this forum for example, MUCH more convenient and accessible than trying to find a philosophy club which meets once a month across town somewhere.
But then, having found what we're looking for in a very convenient and accessible form, we get sucked in to it. Gradually we spend more time online and less with offline friends, because online we can do exactly what we want to do when we want to do it. The offline friends fade away over time, to be replaced by an endless horde of anonymous strangers.
Ten minutes after I leave this forum for the last time I'll be forgotten forever. None of you will be sending me a card on my birthday. :-) The price we pay for getting what we want can be steep.
Oh, and wait, here's the "good news". It's going to get worse. Way worse. Do you think text is compelling? Wait until the Net can deliver virtual reality. Digital characters customized to your exact specifications, projected in to the 3D space of your living room, or um, perhaps bedroom.
We're headed down the rabbit hole folks. Well, you are, I'll probably be dead before the big time loneliness poop hits the fan. — Hippyhead
I agree with all the good things you say about this form of communication and I disagree with a little. For example I have become very close with a woman in another forum because through private messaging I went through the death of her husband with her. This was not intentional but soon after we began communicating she learned her husband had cancer in a a short time he died. Effectively I held her hand through this very rough time in her life and our relationship has continued and evolved into some deep and personal sharing.
It was a man in Portugual who made my last birthday wonderful! He loves sharing his culture and he has a high emotional IQ sending me flowers and music when my spirits are low. True this is a limited relationship but that doesn't mean it is not wonderful at times. I am glad this relationship does not come with the unpleasant aspects of living with someone. I really enjoyed my birthday drinking wine because that is his custom, and eating a Portugese inspired dinner and watching the spiritually moving video he sent me.
I am so happy with the internet and think the pioneer women would have been a whole lot happier if they had the internet. I could live isolated in the boonies or in town and isolated because of the virus and be thrilled to get up each day and turn on my computer and reach out to all the people who come to the web. And some of you will have a very meaningful impact on my life. Thank you :hearts: -
Side Effects of The InternetOne thing that the internet has brought amongst us is loneliness. I think this is why most people want to be writers, we want to write in order to be heard. We want to find an audience, someone to listen to us, someone to relate to us.
If we were having more meaningful daily conversations, I doubt we would be publishing so much literary work. — Konkai
My logic is the opposite of yours. I love being a life long student reading books or watching videos of college lectures, and then sharing what I learn on the internet and learning from others in the forums. I have had some wonderful enlightening moments thanks to these forums, and I live these moments.
In my mundane life, I do not find the average person capable of the meaningful discussions I want. I can deal with their trivial self centered chatter for only a few minutes. I did join a discussion group at a community center and I was horrified by the ignorance! That ignorance can also show up on-line but it has been my expereince my chances of finding well informed people are much higher in forums.
Back on the streets I feel like a nurse maid, smiling and listening to people chatter, so everyone has warm fuzzy feelings, but I give very little time to that compared to my time in forums. I know I am a snob and that is bad, but really I do not find the average person well informed or with any desire to be well informed. Unless you think watching Jeapordy is getting well informed. :rofl: -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.For the nonbeliever, moral principle can only be sourced from within as personal opinion, — Merkwurdichliebe
Liberal education is education for good moral judgment and it results in a much higher morality and has done far more for humanity than religion. Our life span has doubled and in the US few die of starvation, and if they stopped listening to their preachers and Trump, they would stop spreading a deadly virus! Life long liberal education is far superior to being dependent and as a child who must be rewarded or punished to do the right thing.
Praying to this God to feed the starving people, or shelter the homeless will not get the job done because He did not build Noah's ark and He does not send birds to feed straving people. It is our responsibility. We have advanced civilization by accepting our responsibility to do so.
I am afraid "believers" hold many false ideas. -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.This is an ancient perspective that usually sees evil as a matter of acting against nature. The effect is a loss of vitality.
A drawback of this view (for some) is that it means that if the sinner does "get away with it" as you put it, then it couldnt have been evil in the first place.
In fact, with this 'cause-and-effect-morality', one comes to understand what was good or bad in retrospect, by seeing who came to bad ends.
A sibling outlook is a feature of a Christian story about a Jew who was robbed and beaten. His fellow Jews saw him and walked on by. They assumed he must have done something wrong to end up that way. The Good Samaritan comes along and makes no such judgment. The Samaritan has a less materialistic moral perspective.
Morality is more complicated and conflicted than it looks at first glance. For us, its a fusion of several different cultural views. — frank
2+2+4. There is no evil in the equation. What happens is the consequence of the action and there is no evil in the equation. However, if we know we are doing wrong, that weakens us the same as believing we are virtuous makes us strong. That is just the psychological effect of our thoughts, no evil force in the equation.
For sure, cause and effect morality, as well as religious morality, means learning from parents, teachers, friends, experience. It would be an unusual person who gets through life without regrets. If we are lucky, before we get into trouble we learn from reading, or learn from listening to our elders or when our peers are mature we can learn from them, we can even learn from the bad example of others. For sure because we are not born with this knowledge it is challenging to be a human. An advantage of cause and effect morality is the ability to have good judgment for today. That does come from holy books written in ancient times.
Very importantly, the person who does wrong does not get away with it. Where did I say we can get away with doing wrong? The person may not be unaware of the action causing harm, and in that case, the person will repeat the wrong, until made aware of the wrong. In some cases, the wrong will be the result of subconscious distress or it may be a bad habit that is very difficult to break, so more is needed than just knowing eating than cookie will mean gaining weight, or whatever is unwanted. The point is we pay a price for our wrongs if we are aware of that or not and a wrong such as slavery may not enter the wrongdoers' consciousness for 3 generations but sooner or later the wrong will enter our conscioness and we will have to pay the price.
Declaring God wants us to go to war with "those people", and entering the war believing we are doing the will of God, will have bad consequences. It is our children and their children who have to pay for our wrongs. Believing in a God, does not prevent us from doing wrong. It is developed moral judgment that prevents wrongs. -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.They can't join an atheist philosophy forum to discuss love, because that conversation doesn't happen here. — Hippyhead
https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Love&expand=yes&child=&forums=&or=Relevance&discenc=&mem=&tag=&pg=1&date=All&titles=1&Checkboxes%5B%5D=titles&Checkboxes%5B%5D=WithReplies&or=Relevance&user=&disc=&Checkboxes%5B%5D=child — praxis
Looks like plenty has been said of love. If anyone wants to discuss love we can pull up a past discussion or maybe start a new one? I have a concern that religious people hold false beliefs, such as thinking they are more loving, or more moral, or more protected, or are saved and the rest of us are not.
I would rather be respected than loved. I also think a notion of family duty is very important. Or there are all the flavors of love. We love our parents, spouse, children, and neighbor differently. How a good Christian can vote for Trump is beyond me. There are so many reasons to not vote for him, and separating children from their families one of them. I ended a long term relationship with a Christian friend. She thought Trump is a wonderful father to our country. That combination of religion and politics was intolerable to me! However, I am not sure Jesus thought we were equal either. He was a Jew and that is a tribal religion. The God of Abraham was not a God to everyone, so maybe Jesus would be okay with protecting those on this side of the border and keeping it closed to those not born here? I don't know, does Trump really believe there is a God greater than himself? Is he good?
I hope my political concerns are acceptable because really we need to talk about what we believe and how we act on what we believe. Does believing in a God make anyone good? Are those who do not believe in God bad? -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.How do you see the US being punished for its wrongs? — frank
I feel like Alice in Wonderland. I am not understanding why you ask that question.
Moral is a matter of cause and effect. We are not being punished. We are experiencing the effect of what have done. -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.Ok, but nobody has to believe in that advice as a matter of faith. Everyone can try it for themselves, do their own experiment, come to their own conclusion. And THAT process is what really drives religion more so than belief.
This is not complicated, except to philosophers. Everyone has experienced love in their life, and everyone has experienced hate. Some people very rationally conclude that they like love better than hate, and so they gravitate towards communities where like-minded people are discussing love.
They can't join an atheist philosophy forum to discuss love, because that conversation doesn't happen here. So they go where such conversations are happening. — Hippyhead
What makes you think everyone has experienced love? I would say for practical reasons and as a result of dysfunctional families, many choose power over love.
Perhaps a thread to discuss love is appropriate? What would being an atheist have to do with discussing love? That atheist do not discuss love is such a strange notion I feel confused. I have reread what you said a few times because I find it hard to belief you said that. -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.That's ONE of the things that religion is based on. Here's an example...
Jesus suggested things like "love your neighbor like yourself". That's not a mythology, that's a practical suggestion which one can experiment with and come to one's own conclusions based on one's own experience.
To believe one can know absolute truth and that there is one source of that truth, is just wrong, and those who believe that are absolutely dangerous. — Athena
Generally agree, and would add that such phenomena are not limited to the religious. — Hippyhead
Again nicely said and I am particularly delighted that you touched on the matter of authority. I am sorry everyone, I can not stop thinking of political matters and all the people who have not done the studying required for good judgment and gladly depend on their ministers to tell them how to vote, or basing their vote on one issue ignoring all the rest. These are "good people", but their actions and lack of action could lead to terrible things.
As for "do unto others", that is said in every religion and believing only one religion has God's truth is not a good thing. To know God's truth, universal law, may require learning of all religions and as the Romans did, declaring what is shared in common is what a law should be based on. I believe there are many universal truths and our laws should be based on them. However, I believe democracy is the best way to manage this, not authority over the people, because the consciousness of a few in a ruling class will not be as good as our shared consciousness, achieved through argumentation and rule by reason as opposed to authority over the people. -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.If one's belief in these things is properly dogmatic, then it is a religious belief, and there is a rational justification for basing one's morality on principle. — Merkwurdichliebe
Okay, let us address dogma and authority.
dog·ma
/ˈdôɡmə/
Learn to pronounce
noun
noun: dogma; plural noun: dogmas
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the rejection of political dogma" Dictionary
What does one study to be a religious authority?
What does one study to understand reality?
I think science and the liberal arts give us much better moral judgment than the God of Abraham religions. I think it is my responsibility to be my own authority on truth. Not because I know much of anything but because it is my responsibility to get and judge information the best I can and assume responsibility for every action I take. Democracy is self government and it is everyone's responsibility to serach for truth. This is totally different from relying on authority above the people.
This issue of authority is a screaming problem right now and lives are on the line. -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.The key is that religious belief is a conviction, impossible to change by any other notion or reasoning. — Merkwurdichliebe
Ok, sorry, not really meaning offense or trying to start a food fight, nothing personal intended, but this is just rubbish. — Hippyhead
Can I weigh in here? Religion is based on mythology not facts that have been validated. Morality based on cause and effect is akin to science and facts that can be validated. It is not absolute because our individual and shared consciousness is limited, and what we hold to be true changes as we expand our consciousness to be inclusive of all others and the planet we live on. To believe one can know absolute truth and that there is one source of that truth, is just wrong, and those who believe that are absolutely dangerous. Be careful of the conviction! Being a convict of what one thinks is a problem. -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.I see what you're saying. In medieval times warlords paid attention to their moral standing in the eyes of their soldiers because if the soldiers became convinced God had abandoned them, the will to fight would wane. The soldiers would fear that they might be fighting against God and so dooming themselves to hell.
So if nothing else, God can be a very powerful aspect of the human psyche. — frank
That was beautifully said, and so is the notion of cause and effect (morality) that strong, when it is understood. I have lost one of my most precious books that had serval sayings about the importance of responsibility and I regret I don't remember them, but they in line with the notion of karma. If we fail to be fully responsible for our actions, we loose the opportunity that the responsibility gave us.
"Responsibility educates." Wendell Philips
A nation led by a person who does not take responsibility but blames others, is a nation in trouble, and unfortunately, citizens of the US have not been prepared for democracy since the 1958 National Defense Education Act, and is now a nation in big trouble. Since the National Defense Act instead of preparing everyone for independent thinking, they were prepared to rely on authority because this is the fastest way to advance technology. The act ended education for good moral judgment and left moral training to the church. Now the leader of the US shares much in common with a past leader of Germany and so do the citizens share much in common with those who followed that leader. Now I am arguing, no, we do not get away with our wrongs. I am hoping people understand what I am saying about responsibility,
Jesus is not going to save us any more than he saved the Germans, and thinking we can get away with our wrongs is just wrong! -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.Even if the consequences of an action (example: stealing) will be the the same despite the particular player involved, for the nonbeliever, anyone who steals cannot and will not be judged the same in every case. For the believer, there is one standard by which everyone is measured, and the judgement that he incurrs, his personal judgment that he can never avoid, is of the utmost importance to himself — Merkwurdichliebe
I don't think you answered the question. What is being judged, the person or the act? -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.I'm not saying all nonbelievers try to get away with shit, I'm saying if one does get away with shit, there will be no greater consequences for him. If getting away with something is thought to be the right thing to do, and it is done, then it does not matter the slightest if it harms another. Of course, if the perpetrator gets caught, then it probably won't seem so right to him anymore. Hence the relativism of morality for the nonbeliever. — Merkwurdichliebe
Ouch, ouch that thought hurts! Our own limited consciousness is not the whole of reality! If we do wrong, the harm is done if we know about it or not and sooner of later the wrong will be our problem or children's children's problem (Socrates). Slavery is a good example of that rule. Some people were so sure a God gave them the right to own slaves that they fought a war to protect their right to own slaves. And boy do we have a problem today!
Lying is another example. Most of us get away with a lie or two, but this destroys trust, and once trust is destroyed, a lot more goes wrong. Or worse a person's lies can result in the deaths of millions of people. Our wrongs affect others and can even impact life in a big way. How many people died because the tobbacco industry lied? What is the affect of the oil industry lying about the consequences of extracting and burning oil? A limited consciousness that leaves a person to believe s/he can away with lying is a terrible thing. -
Belief in god is necessary for being good.You said well in case the end purpose of one's existence is to serve life in the world as all other non-human living things are created for this same purpose while they are guided by their natural instincts (the preprogramed instructions which are embedded in them by the Creator).
You may wonder now what end purpose could be... other than the one of serving life.
Answering this question is not easy because it depends on one's nature of which he is created.
As a man of reason and science, I am sure that life on earth or elsewhere cannot exist forever, much like our mortal living bodies. So, if the main/crucial reason for which life on earth was created is just to let it progress (move humanity to a greater consciousness), it will result to 'nothing' at the end of times as if the Creator decided to play a game then shut it off... to start another one perhaps :)
I can't go on without talking off topic. It is better to explore, on a separate thread, what the other end purpose could be. — KerimF
Kahill Gibran says we speak when we are not at ease with our thoughts, and I feel uneasy with what you said. I do not believe in a designer of our existence. Saying our purpose is thinking is because that is what we do, and a bird flies and a horse runs. But my understanding of this is more quantum physics than a religion beginning with a designer. It happens by chance and fills a nitch that isn't already full, or that which is in that nitch can not win the competion for a place in life and becomes extinct. It is after the fact that we can see purpose. While horses proved to be very useful to humans, I don't think they are a neccessary part of life and domestic animals are more the creation of humans than a god. Unfortunately humans can destroy life on this planet and I don't think a God is in control but the rules of universe do control cause and effect. Humans are capable of understanding the rules and can increase or destroy life or change things to suit the human pupose. For sure we are not made of mud and we did not begin in an Eden.
As for our finite reality. I have heard some ancients believed the day would come when there is more life on earth than what the earth can support. I am not sure the planet will survive us as anything but another sterile rock floating in space. However, I am not sure about conscious and other dimemsions.
Athena
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum